117 cartons(20,340) cigarettes, 1.6kg tobacco, 1 blue film all confiscated ... then returned to shopper after appeal. 2000

l'll have the written appeal in a few days so l'll put that up as well. You'll note that the HMRC Officer put the date down as November when it was date stamped October. Also he put Obscene Video Tape when he hadn't even seen it. The shopper refused to sign the seizure document.Note also that the goods are mixed L&B, Superkings and Samson tobacco.

Finally got the appeal and HMRC replies but there's a hell of a lot of it so l'll give you the summary and put the originals up later when personal details have been taken out. 

Mr M was stopped at Liverpool airport with the above amount. Mr M had chosen to fly to Spain for his cigarettes as they were far cheaper than France as indeed they still are today. The Dover-Calais run is not for cigarettes but is still ok for tobacco but Belgium is preferred. Here 'up North' people use the Hull-Zeebrugge ferry which is P&O but in those days was North Sea Ferries but as Mr M wanted primarily cigarettes and not tobacco, the ferry was not an option.

When stopped by HMRC Officer Kirkbride, Mr M soon discovered that despite Mr M being totally legal and supplying the correct answers Officer Kirkbride was intent on confiscating Mr M's goods no matter what. This he indeed did but Mr M refused to sign the notice as it was not factual  in his opinion. Note, these were the days of the guidelines of 800 cigarettes (4 cartons)

Mr M then appealed to HMRC giving details of why the amount of goods he bought was for personal use, details of gifts, details of finance and so on. Mr M also put in a formal letter of complaint against Officer Kikbride.

Mr M won his appeal and got a letter of apology from HMRC. HMRC thought that was the end of the matter but Mr M pursued his complaint and eventually the outcome was a response from the Director of North HMRC. In it he stated that Mr M was correct in his complaint and the procedures used by HMRC officers were wrong and as a result HMRC officers would be re-trained. Mr M also got apologies from this Director
Mr M continues his shopping from the EU and l thank him for allowing me to post his documentation on this. Too many are afraid of the HMRC because of the myths surrounding them when, in fact, they are akin to the Wizard of Oz. 


 Sent edited docs back for approval of Mr M. In meantime got approved docs back for another confiscation, appeal and return of goods


  1. Hah ... it's in the appeal itself which should be up sometime tommorrow. Think of this as the preview. :) It's long though and l need to take out personal details first as requested so please bear with me.


"In the eyes of the Tribunal the review letter contained several preconceptions, prejudgments and non-sequiturs"

"the absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it"

"We therefore find that Mr Sked misdirected himself as to the Policy in carrying out the review and his decision is therefore one that no reasonable review officer could have arrived at."

... commonly known here at N2D as 'Skeds' ... that is to say these are Judges comments regarding UKBA Review Officer Ian Sked's reasons for rejecting peoples appeals against seizures.

Comments are now moderated to keep out spam and those with malicious intent. The author of this blog is not liable for the content of any comments ... period!